Talk:Epic Path: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I think it should be small, odd-shaped AoE's (I like 1x5, personally, cause it can go diagonally, but I don't hate 2x4, 2x6, etc. shapes that have to start from a flat side of your space, either). I think the wielder should have to roll to hit for every target in the AOE, and then roll damage once for all of them. No save, since there was a to-hit roll. I could see adding in an auto-selective feature, but I'd prefer if there was a cost to using it... like, for every ally you exclude, you have to exclude an enemy, or something... I would also clearly state that the attack has to start at an enemy in melee range. | I think it should be small, odd-shaped AoE's (I like 1x5, personally, cause it can go diagonally, but I don't hate 2x4, 2x6, etc. shapes that have to start from a flat side of your space, either). I think the wielder should have to roll to hit for every target in the AOE, and then roll damage once for all of them. No save, since there was a to-hit roll. I could see adding in an auto-selective feature, but I'd prefer if there was a cost to using it... like, for every ally you exclude, you have to exclude an enemy, or something... I would also clearly state that the attack has to start at an enemy in melee range. | ||
hrrm. i'll write up an example today, lets see how we feel about it. also, the 2x4, 2x6, 3x5, etc, can be laid out diagonally. should we make that clearer, or expressly forbid it, or something? | hrrm. i'll write up an example today, lets see how we feel about it. also, the 2x4, 2x6, 3x5, etc, can be laid out diagonally. should we make that clearer, or expressly forbid it, or something? we could have a diagram with examples, maybe? | ||
* negative bab; favored class dictates full attack | * negative bab; favored class dictates full attack | ||